Human Rights Violations

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the key importance of an independent judiciary. So many countries do themselves a disservice by not guaranteeing free and independent legal processes. They damage their own trade prospects by not giving businesses the confidence that any dispute with which they might become involved can be resolved properly by an independent judiciary. That challenges the viability of contract law, and we know plenty of examples of other countries that use English contract law, with its long reputation for integrity and reliability, as the way to do business. That is great for this country, commercially as well as politically, but other countries will do well to adopt the principles that for so long have applied in countries such as ours.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thorough report, and I urge those who have not read it to do so. The excerpts from the report that he has drawn upon in his speech today are heartbreaking, and illuminate what goes on in the rest of the world.

Has my hon. Friend thought about the fact that the United Nations was set up in the wake of the second world war, to try to prevent such enormous atrocities as happened in that war from ever occurring again? Has he also thought about the fact that some of the UN’s institutions are not as effective as they might be—in particular, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which often has principal members who themselves have pretty dubious human rights records? What more could our Government do to urge the UN to be more effective? Many of my hon. Friend’s recommendations involve human rights resolutions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The answer that I would give him today is that I think that the United Nations has brought together Governments but perhaps has a long way to go to bring together other levels of society. For an organisation such as the UN to make true progress, more work must be done at differing levels of society, more effectively to bring together professional organisations, for example. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have organisations, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, with international relations committees that do a lot of this work, by working with lawyers in other countries to spread best practice, share principles of freedom and justice and encourage other societies to work in a similar way. Without the support of member Governments of the United Nations, and of the institution itself, that work will always be too ad hoc to have universal application. That is my view about how the United Nations should now develop, nearly 70 years after its foundation in San Francisco in 1945.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for The Cotswolds for their interventions. Reference has been made to the integrity of contract law and to the rule of law, and that brings me on to the final area that we considered: the difficulties faced in many countries by people who are trying to carry out business or are in some way involved in representing people in business. I have made the fundamental point that threats to the integrity of business practice threaten not only freedom, but the commercial and financial viability of many countries. In particular, we looked at what is happening in Russia, and we are gravely concerned that the Russian state is either condoning or actively taking part in endemic corruption. There are two cases that we consider to be examples of the baleful effect of state corruption on the lifeblood of an economy.

The Sergei Magnitsky case has been well documented and the subject of debates, not only here but in countries across the world. A debate in the House some months ago highlighted the continuing concerns of both Government and Opposition Members about the role of the Russian state in the killing of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Putting it simply, Mr Magnitsky was arrested, imprisoned and ill-treated, and he died for having blown the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the position that the Russian state now finds itself in and the danger to freedom that such cases reveal.

We believe that in recognition of the unique position of London as a destination of choice for many senior Russian officials, the Government should, as soon as possible, introduce measures publicly to restrict visas and to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in serious corruption and human rights abuses. We were delighted by the reference to the issue in “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”:

“Where there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses, the individual will not normally be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.”

That statement is particularly important in the context of a recent development in Russia: the decision by the authorities to withhold the identities of all 12 prosecutors involved in the posthumous—yes, posthumous—trial of Sergei Magnitsky. The man not only suffered indignity in life; he now faces it in death. The reason for withholding the identities, it seems to me, is simple. If legislation, which is being considered by the United States Congress among others, is passed, those individuals would face losing visa rights and having their assets frozen if their identities were revealed. That lamentable state of affairs further reflects the difficult and troubled situation that we face with human rights in Russia.

The other Russian example that we looked at was the Khodorkovsky case. Without going into the full details of that troubled history, the individual remains in prison, after eight years, and the case has still not been satisfactorily resolved. We regard it as yet another example of double standards being applied, rather than equality under the law, which has to be a basic tenet of all countries that hold themselves out to be free. That is important, because bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% every year since 2001. In 2010, exports from this country to Russia increased by 51% to nearly £3.5 billion, which shows the importance for British business of the integrity of the financial and business systems in countries such as Russia. Without that integrity, there is a direct threat to British business and the integrity of trade between our two nations. That is why, at a practical level, it is important that the British Government’s message to regimes that indulge in such practices is clear.

We urge the Government to introduce measures to support civil society in Russia, by encouraging and facilitating British professional bodies to engage with their Russian counterparts. We emphasise that Russia’s membership of European and global organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the World Trade Organisation carries a significant responsibility to operate according to international rules.

A foreign policy that involves not only the use of political pressure to achieve change but investment in developing professional skills and capacity, with the direct input of British professional organisations in sharing best practice and providing training, will do much to help build a freer and more stable world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense that my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but has he considered how our international development assistance might be used to persuade countries that have a less than perfect human rights record that they need to improve their performance?

[Mr Buckland]

Yes, I have. I firmly believe that the role of our international development programme is not only to give direct monetary help, where appropriate, but to facilitate and allow professionals and professional organisations to spread best practice and train professionals in emerging countries, by providing the appropriate funding for those programmes to exist.

As a country, we produce thousands of qualified professionals every year, and this is not an easy time for many of those professionals to go immediately into full-time practice because there is a lot of competition in the market. I believe that there is a great opportunity for some of our younger professionals and, indeed, for professionals who wish to take a mid-career break to put something back into the society from which they have benefited. What better way to do that than by embarking upon properly funded, properly structured programmes in countries with poor human rights records to spread good practice and freedom?

Our greatest invisible exports are freedom, the rule of law and freedom under the law. Let us ensure that fellow professionals in other countries can genuinely enjoy the freedoms that I and other professionals have enjoyed in this country so that they, in all their walks of life, can operate without fear or favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I commend all colleagues who spoke during the debate. There is a fair number of lawyers among us. I appreciate the way that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) introduced the debate, for which I congratulate him. I also congratulate him on the work done by his commission—by all members of his commission—in bringing this matter forward. That thorough piece of work was reflected in the thoroughness of his speech, which highlighted such a number of issues. I am pleased that we had the time to allow that exposition.

It is difficult to respond to everything. Once again, my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is like an erudite machine gun, asking a series of questions that I could not possibly respond to in 15 minutes, unless I dealt solely with those, but I shall try to answer some. Everything that he mentions is important and anything that I cannot deal with today, I will find a way of dealing with. The same goes for other colleagues who contributed.

The report was particularly valuable because it did not just say that the world is a bad place, which we know. It contains specific recommendations for us to work on, some of which I will comment on now and others that I shall have to respond to later. I appreciated that aspect of the report.

As colleagues know, and as the hon. Member for Wrexham rightly said—he has to put us on the spot—we take human rights values seriously, and they are in the forefront of the Government’s policy. It is clear that, although we live in a world of universal values, we do not live in a world of universal standards. That puts us in conflict with other states. Some states are greater friends than others. We raise the issues and are conscious of the conflicts that arise. There are various ways of raising matters and bringing them forward: sometimes that is done publicly and openly and sometimes it is done with increasing tempo if there is no reaction from the states with which we are engaged. Some states have appalling human rights records and others have generally good records, but there are blips.

We try to take people as we find them, but the House can be assured that we raise the subject of values, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I will mention one or two specifics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we always have to do this in the spirit of humility. Our record is not spotless, whether in past years or more recently. Only today the House will deal with the Hillsborough incident and I suspect that the state will be dealing with some degree of regret about how it handled that. In recent times we have had to deal with Bloody Sunday. We do go to states on the basis of saying, “Don’t just look at what we say, look at our experience of how we’ve dealt with things well or poorly. We try constantly to learn from our past and appreciate that, in places, there has been pain. But equally we have a lot to be proud of in respect of what we stand for and what we work for.” Getting that put together is important.

The report is about professionals and it is right to recognise that and mention that some types of work raise particular issues of danger and risk. However, in no way is the report intended to be exclusive; it highlights the concerns of a particular group of people who work, but neither my hon. Friend nor the Government, nor any Member of the House would minimise the fact that human rights issues affect many.

I assure the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who made a sound contribution as usual, that of course we recognise that migrant workers have the same human rights as everyone else. Last year, the Government strongly endorsed the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and, while they do not deal explicitly with migrant workers, they provide an opportunity to continue work in that field. The Department for International Development has some such projects as well. It is right to raise the issue, but the House should be in no doubt: we do not consider the report to be exclusive and we recognise the rights and issues facing many others.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Government see the promotion of human rights as an integral part of UK foreign policy. We promote human rights because it is right to do so—right because we are a nation with a conscience, but also right because it is in our fundamental interests to do so.

I thank the commission for highlighting the human rights violations that business people and professionals suffer as a result of their work. As the report acknowledges, often such groups and individuals suffer attack precisely because they use their positions to protect and promote the rights of others. They are human rights defenders, and the defence of such groups and their rights is important to the Government. I appreciate how my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon constructed the report thematically, and his speech likewise, so let me make my response in the same way.

The commission’s report recommends that the UK should provide visible support to the rule of law and lawyers, and that we should ensure that our embassies and high commissions are implementing the EU guidelines on human rights defenders. We thank the commission for that recommendation and we agree that providing support to promote the rule of law is important. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave a speech on that very topic in The Hague in July this year, highlighting UK policy and our work. The UK strongly supports the EU guidelines on human rights defenders, which are a crucial part of that work.

In answer to the questions on engagement asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham and others, our overseas missions work with EU colleagues locally to support human rights defenders, as well as with colleagues from other like-minded embassies. In line with the guidelines, FCO staff regularly meet human rights defenders, including lawyers and journalists, we raise specific instances of abuse or detention with governments and we often speak out publicly.

As we look at the development of democracy in areas such as north Africa, it is important that we take the opportunities of our Arab partnership programme to engage specialists such as the Bar Council, the Law Society and others that might have specialist information to impart, and that is what we seek to do. The whole benefit of the Arab partnership is that it is not only Government to Government but involves civil society working together. Increasingly, we will look at opportunities to do just that.

An example of our work is the diplomatic effort and visible support that the United Kingdom, working with EU and other partners, has given to human rights defenders in Belarus, a country mentioned in the report and the debate. Our actions have maintained pressure on the authorities to take account of their human rights obligations.

To provide urgent practical support to human rights defenders, in 2011 we joined other international donors in establishing Lifeline, the embattled NGO assistance fund, which aims to provide emergency assistance and small grants worldwide to civil society that is facing increasing repression and harassment because of work in promoting human rights.

Let me turn to medics and, in conjunction with them, Bahrain. The commission’s report details human rights violations against medical personnel. UK policy is clear that it is unacceptable for medical professionals to suffer violation of their human rights for fulfilling their ethical responsibilities. UK diplomats observe trials of human rights defenders and, where appropriate, we seek to observe the trials of medical professionals as well.

I shall look at the other recommendations, but let me say one or two things in particular. The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned health care in general and the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are a strong supporter of the “Health care in danger” initiative, we are supportive of ICRC efforts to protect health care workers in armed conflict and we share the ICRC analysis that violence against health workers and infrastructure is among the most serious contemporary humanitarian challenges—we are active in discussing those matters with the ICRC.

The report details the situation in Bahrain, which has been raised again today—it is complex, as the House knows and I have spoken of it before. Bahrain is a society that, over time, has sought to make political reforms in the context of the country’s difficulties between Sunni, Shi’a, monarchy and others, which came to a head in the 2011 crisis and how that was handled. Our current perception is that the position remains patchy. There is no doubt that the kingdom’s effort to hold a public inquiry and to produce a report in public that criticised the Government was unique in the region, and a series of recommendations has been followed. I have a copy of the ICRC follow-up unit’s report of July 2012, which is solid reading, but it cannot be seen without recognising the intent to deal with the issues. It is not, however, complete, and nor is the implementation of recommendations.

Crucially, progress depends on political dialogue in Bahrain. Recent efforts were made over Ramadan by the Government to engage with opposition parties, which also have a responsibility. Violence on the streets has increased, as has the level of violence—pipe bombs, the discovery of two bomb-making factories—but violence will not help. The opposition must be clear, publicly and privately, as it has been, that it does not condone such violence. Opposition engagement in conversation with Government authorities will help. Both sides have work to do. The House can be assured that we take that seriously, and we use our opportunity of representation to make our case and to keep the kingdom moving in the direction that it has plainly set out for further reform, although we recognise that that is patchy and that there are human rights and other difficulties.

We were disappointed at the Bahraini civilian court decision last week to uphold the sentences of 13 political activists in the country. We welcomed the decision to review the cases in a civilian court, as recommended by the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry, but we remain concerned about the strength of the convictions. Reports at the time those individuals were sentenced, which were acknowledged by the BICI, suggested that some individuals had been abused in detention, denied access to legal counsel and coerced into confession. We urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to the Court of Cassation and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency. We will continue to watch the appeal process.

Regarding the medical staff, none is currently behind bars and a further appeal is pending. Some sentences were repealed when the cases came from the military to civilian courts, which we welcome. Nabeel Rajab remains behind bars and his case will now be heard on 27 September. The appeal by the Bahraini teachers will be heard later in September, and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency while ensuring that due legal process is followed.

On the grand prix, I do take issue with the hon. Member for Wrexham. It was a matter for the Bahraini authorities, and I am not sure that the process of the grand prix going ahead necessarily set back anything in Bahrain. There was an opportunity for peaceful protest in the days leading up to the grand prix, which was observed by the Bahraini authorities—those protests were allowed—and only the violent protests were subsequently shown on television in this country. The process of getting the grand prix held, which was a Bahraini decision, demonstrated that it could be held—an opportunity for comment was provided, and then the country went back to its other work. So I am not sure that we should have taken the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman and made remarks—we did the right thing.

I must move fairly swiftly if I am not to lose the rest of my time. As soon as I can find my remarks, I shall be able to continue. The problem with too many papers is that I have now lost the text.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

We do not hear much about human rights abuses in one or two countries such as North Korea, but the commission took some horrific evidence. Will the Minister say something about regimes that have some of the worst human rights records?

[Alistair Burt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We need to ensure that, in picking out individual countries, we recognise that there are many other countries that we could discuss. My hon. Friend mentioned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but we could also deal with Iran in great detail in relation to today’s debate. We remain deeply concerned about human rights issues in Iran—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for mentioning those—where the record is disgraceful. We make regular comments on trials and on the various professions involved.

I spoke about journalists only recently in a public statement. We support world press freedom day, and that is something that we will continue to advance. We take a particular interest in journalists online, recognising the dangers to them, while the other professions dealt with include trade unionists and teachers. The concerns in Colombia that were mentioned worry us deeply—we have spoken about that—and we remain concerned about the human rights situation in Moscow. I shall update the House from time to time as issues occur.